9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER The above appeal has been filed by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited, Puducherry (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") against the Order-in-Original No. 492/2009 dated 20-7-2009 passed by the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I. 2.0 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant had filed four rebate claims for Rs. 10,63,109/- on the goods viz. Mosquito Repellant M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating Authority passed the impugned Order-in-Original allowing rebate only for 'Mosquito Repellant Liquid' portion which had been manufactured and rejecting the claim for Rs. 5,84,704/- on the 'Mosquito Repellant Machine' portion which had been imported. 3.0 Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed this appeal mainly on the following grounds :- (i) that the reba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions show that they are eligible for rebate : (1) 2004 (170) E.L.T. 568 (T) (2) Ispat Industrial Ltd. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 493 (T) (3) 2000 (121) E.L.T. 474 (T) 4.0 Personal hearing was conducted on 20-7-2011. Ms. N. Ahilandeeswari, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. None appeared from the Departmental side, desp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther denial of rebate of duty paid on the goods exported is correct. 5.1 I find that the fact that the impugned goods were exported is not questioned. The only issue under which Lower Adjudicating Authority has rejected the rebate claim, is that there was no activity of manufacture in relation to Mosquito Repellent. But the LAA himself has agreed in para 5 of the impugned order that the goods wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
